<div>I am 100 percent with you on this Bruce.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I recall Vint Cerf telling me that he felt ICANN lost a couple of good years with what he called 'navel gazing' in the last big shakeup.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>There is a strong tendency in the people willing to obsess over ICANN's functioning to create over complicated, over formal structures and processes. I think we have seen it again in the CWG.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Of course, while ICANN corporate continues to resist real accountability, less formal reviews are likely to be seen as pointless. </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>But if the Board will open up the organization more to real accountability, then I think we can start avoiding the huge time and money suck of these reviews that have limited useful impact. Less navel gazing, more DNS fixing.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Kieren</div>
<div><br></div>
<div class="mailbox_signature">
<br>-<br>[sent through phone]</div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><p>On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 3:46 AM, Bruce Tonkin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au" target="_blank">Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>></span> wrote:<br></p><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div lang="EN-AU">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Hello Kieran,</span><span lang="EN-US" style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><p></p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p>
<p> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">>> </span> I think ICANN has gone too far down the route of heavy, formal reviews. If there is a group that the Board is effectively obliged to listen to, then small improvements to accountability processes
can be made over time with focussed, more frequent discussions.<span style="color:#1F497D"><p></p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><p> </p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Agreed. WE have at least 8 reviews I thin coming up in the next 12 months or so. Each review kicks of $ millions of work for consultants – that doesn’t always
produce results that justify the cost and time of all involved.<p></p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><p> </p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I am thinking that the next round of reviews should focus on assessing whether the changes made from the last review have been effective – and potentially refine
those changes further so they are effective. These reviews should be time boxed – e.g to take the period starting and end with an ICANN public meeting- rather than year long reviews that kick of 5 years of project work.<p></p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><p> </p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>For example in the WHOIS area – the registrar agreement were changed to require email and postal address checks. It would be worth seeing if these have made
any dent in making it easier to track down criminals.<p></p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><p> </p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Regards<p></p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Bruce Tonkin</span></p>
<p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br>